how Should we define what is Heresy?

[asterisktom]

He is a preterist.

I assumed he remembered that about me. At any rate the issue is not my being a Preterist but my insisting on a Biblical basis for all assertions.

All I asking - either Yeshua or you - since the assertion was yours, after all: Where does the Bible teach that "Denying a literal and physical future return of Jesus is heresy."?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Let's NOT get off subject over the false views of the return of Christ. :saint:

Heresy is defined biblically as a "choice leading to disunion" (from truth, NOT from opinion, dogma, belief of man, et al)

Except for obvious and well-established FACT, the word "heresy" is not used on the BB. This is because we would be calling each other "heretics" over a thousand small areas of disagreement.

Pelagianism is heresy, but this is different from semi-pelagian or Arminian thought so we do NOT call someone non-Calvinistic a "heretic".

Arianism is heresy, as is it's modern advocates - Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, LDS, so can use that label on the BB. But NOT of those who do not accept Lordship Salvation.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Let's NOT get off subject over the false views of the return of Christ. :saint:

Heresy is defined biblically as a "choice leading to disunion" (from truth, NOT from opinion, dogma, belief of man, et al)

Except for obvious and well-established FACT, the word "heresy" is not used on the BB. This is because we would be calling each other "heretics" over a thousand small areas of disagreement.

Pelagianism is heresy, but this is different from semi-pelagian or Arminian thought so we do NOT call someone non-Calvinistic a "heretic".

Arianism is heresy, as is it's modern advocates - Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, LDS, so can use that label on the BB. But NOT of those who do not accept Lordship Salvation.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Except for obvious and well-established FACT, the word "heresy" is not used on the BB.

Pelagianism is heresy, but this is different from semi-Pelagian or Arminian thought so we do NOT call someone non-Calvinistic a "heretic".

Hmm... yet another moderator is allowed to use the term on fellow believers with impunity?

"Damning heresy is any doctrine or practice that is contrary to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Don Fortner
_______________________________________________________________________
And then, barely less than three hours before I made this post yet another mod has tossed around the "H-bomb". The word is not used on the Baptist Board? Really?

 

[DHK]

Hmm... yet another moderator is allowed to use the term on fellow believers with impunity?

"Damning heresy is any doctrine or practice that is contrary to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Don Fortner

Where did anyone deny that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Perhaps you misunderstand the non-Cal position, or deliberately misrepresent it.

 

[Rippon]

Where did anyone deny that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

No one at all. I was trying to say that if anyone departs from that formula then the H-term can be fairly applied. But you and Pastor Bob apparently think you can freely use the H-Bomb on Calvinists if they differ with your convictions.

Perhaps you misunderstand the non-Cal position, or deliberately misrepresent it.

Perhaps you are playing innocent and naive.

 

[DHK]

No one at all. I was trying to say that if anyone departs from that formula then the H-term can be fairly applied. But you and Pastor Bob apparently think you can freely use the H-Bomb on Calvinists if they differ with your convictions.

Perhaps you are playing innocent and naive.

Reread your post. It is very ambiguous and can be taken more than one way.

 

[Rippon]

Hmm... yet another moderator is allowed to use the term on fellow believers with impunity?

"Damning heresy is any doctrine or practice that is contrary to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Don Fortner
_______________________________________________________________________
And then, barely less than three hours before I made this post yet another mod has tossed around the "H-bomb". The word is not used on the Baptist Board? Really?

Hmm...the above is clear as crystal;completely unambiguous.

 

[Rippon]

To Make It Even More Clear...

These are DHK's words to OldRegular :"Your strongly held opinions does not give you the right to call others heretics or their position heresy...The same goes for non-Cals as well." 8/8/12

Which is it DHK? Are you and PastorBob allowed to go against BB rules and your own statements such as the above? Be honest and consistent.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think you two ought to take this to PM. What say you?

 

[DHK]

These are DHK's words to OldRegular :"Your strongly held opinions does not give you the right to call others heretics or their position heresy...The same goes for non-Cals as well." 8/8/12

Which is it DHK? Are you and PastorBob allowed to go against BB rules and your own statements such as the above? Be honest and consistent.

Rippon, close this discussion. I have no idea what you are talking about.
My statement above still stands as it does now. Whatever I said last year (August 8 of 2012) I have no way of remembering. I don't remember every word I say every day of every year. If you harbor grudges for that long you definitely have a problem. This discussion is closed.

 

[saturneptune]

He is a preterist.

I am sorry to hear that. Hope he gets over it.

 

[saturneptune]

These are DHK's words to OldRegular :"Your strongly held opinions does not give you the right to call others heretics or their position heresy...The same goes for non-Cals as well." 8/8/12

Which is it DHK? Are you and PastorBob allowed to go against BB rules and your own statements such as the above? Be honest and consistent.

You are a master at the open mouth, insert foot art.

Another thought that comes to mind is..............you can take all the past posts that you look up in the archives and repost them where the sun does not shine, crossways.

 

[Rippon]

you can take all the past posts that you look up in the archives and repost them where the sun does not shine, crossways.

You're so classy Mike.

Well, if you had not posted your filth in the first place I would not have had to prove how at the very least how double-minded you are. You contradict yourself constantly.

If I bring up some things from the archives it serves a useful purpose --usually that a person --you or others, has been inconsistent. I let their own words condemn them.

 

[asterisktom]

He is a preterist

I am sorry to hear that. Hope he gets over it.

Just to clear thngs up. Revmitchell said this of me, not Rippon.

My input here on this thread was just asking for chapter and verse on his earlier assertion in this thread ("Denying a literal and physical future return of Jesus is heresy.").

Still waiting.

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's NOT get off subject over the false views of the return of Christ. :saint:

Heresy is defined biblically as a "choice leading to disunion" (from truth, NOT from opinion, dogma, belief of man, et al)

Except for obvious and well-established FACT, the word "heresy" is not used on the BB. This is because we would be calling each other "heretics" over a thousand small areas of disagreement.

Pelagianism is heresy, but this is different from semi-pelagian or Arminian thought so we do NOT call someone non-Calvinistic a "heretic".

Arianism is heresy, as is it's modern advocates - Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, LDS, so can use that label on the BB. But NOT of those who do not accept Lordship Salvation.

Isn't denying the literal physical returning of Jesus still future though heresy, as defined by the orthodox church?

 

[asterisktom]

Isn't denying the literal physical returning of Jesus still future though heresy, as defined by the orthodox church?

Chapter and verse.

Of the "B, I, B, L, E. That's the Book for me!".

 

[DHK]

Chapter and verse.

Of the "B, I, B, L, E. That's the Book for me!".

Fundamental doctrines are essential doctrines to the Christian faith and accepted as such throughout history by orthodox Christianity. Those who deny such doctrines would believe in heresy, correct?
For example, to deny the deity of Christ would be a heretical position.
The denial of the virgin birth or of any such fundamental doctrine puts one outside the realm of orthodoxy. Thus the question is: "Is the Second Coming a fundamental doctrine?" and the consequent denial thereof a heretical position to take.

In 1958 Charles Feinberg, (one of John MacArthur's seminary teachers), edited a book entitled, "The Fundamentals for Today." In it there are many topics covered by many different authors. There are such topics as: One Isaiah, The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, etc. Near the end of the book in chapter 64, Prof. Charles R. Erdman, D.D. has written a sermon on "The Coming of Christ." Erdman taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in his day.
This is what he said in his message:

The return of Christ is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. It is embodied in hymns of hope; it forms the climax the creeds; it is the sublime motive for evangelistic and missionary activity; and daily it is voiced in the inspired prayer: "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
It is a peculiarly a scriptural doctrine. It is not, on the one hand, a dream of ignorant fanatics, nor, on the other, a creation of speculative theologians; but it is a truth divinely revealed, and recorded in the Bible with marked clearness, emphasis and prominence.

His sermon is divided in this manner:
I. His coming will be personal
II. His coming will be glorious
III. His coming is Imminent

Though he discusses other points of views and is somewhat conciliatory, he himself is a pre-millennialist.
This one thing he insists on: One must not deny the future coming of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is one of the fundamentals of our faith.

 

[asterisktom]

Fundamental doctrines are essential doctrines to the Christian faith and accepted as such throughout history by orthodox Christianity. Those who deny such doctrines would believe in heresy, correct?
For example, to deny the deity of Christ would be a heretical position.
The denial of the virgin birth or of any such fundamental doctrine puts one outside the realm of orthodoxy. Thus the question is: "Is the Second Coming a fundamental doctrine?" and the consequent denial thereof a heretical position to take.

In 1958 Charles Feinberg, (one of John MacArthur's seminary teachers), edited a book entitled, "The Fundamentals for Today." In it there are many topics covered by many different authors. There are such topics as: One Isaiah, The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, etc. Near the end of the book in chapter 64, Prof. Charles R. Erdman, D.D. has written a sermon on "The Coming of Christ." Erdman taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in his day.
This is what he said in his message:

His sermon is divided in this manner:
I. His coming will be personal
II. His coming will be glorious
III. His coming is Imminent

Though he discusses other points of views and is somewhat conciliatory, he himself is a pre-millennialist.
This one thing he insists on: One must not deny the future coming of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is one of the fundamentals of our faith.

OK. I give up.

I asked for Scripture on a particular assertion.

Scripture!
Bible!

Why is this so hard to answer?

 

[Aaron]

its NOT various eschatological/Sotierology viewpoints is it?

has to be something seperate than that, right?

Heresy is more than mere error. Heresy is a doctrine that, which if confessed, divides one from faith in Christ. The Judaizers of the early church is a Scriptural example.